Editor -- All people receiving Social Security benefits will have to be on the lookout for possible cuts in their monthly benefits if the President's Commission on Social Security has its way. Recent reports are that the commission is considering benefit cuts of between 5 and 10 percent if the program is partially privatized.

During the last campaign, when asked about the possibility of cuts in Social Security benefits, Bush constantly answered, "A promise made is a promise kept." This is one promise which Bush certainly should keep.

Current projections are that the trust fund will be depleted in 2038 (although 73 percent of current benefits would still be paid). But, that estimate is based on a growth rate of roughly 1.7 percent, far below historical averages. Ironically, if the economy grows at the 3.2 percent rate projected by the White House, Social Security will be financially sound until the year 2075 and beyond according to Social Security actuaries.

Is it any wonder the Commission on Social Security is meeting in secret? They certainly don't want the news about cutting Social Security benefits to get around.

ROGER L. DUBA

San Rafael

BUSH LOGIC

First, Bush states that "it is the peoples' money and they should get it back!" Hurrah!! Then, he says "the American people need it to pay their energy bills!" Huh? And now, this ubiquitous "tax refund" (now known as a rebate) raison d'etre is "to stimulate the economy." Soon it will be for paying back- taxes. What a CEO.

LAWRENCE GRAUBART

Daly City

DRUGGING KIDS

Editor -- I agree with Joan Ryan (Chronicle, Aug. 24) that having legislators set up a gag rule is a very bad idea. Having no kids myself, I have no personal experience with Ritalin. Some questions occur to me, however:

How many of the scientific studies Ryan mentions were conducted by drug manufacturers? And how many of the studies compared Ritalin with non-drug treatments?

Do we know how many hours of TV ADHD kids watch per day, and has abstinence from TV been studied as a remedy? How about the effectiveness of unstructured play activities in natural outdoor environments? How about paying one wage- earner in the family enough that the other parent can stay home and be available for the kids after school? How about smaller classrooms and higher- paid teachers?

Drugs are sometimes the best tool with which to curb troublesome behavior. But I'm deeply suspicious of the idea that if there's a disconnect between a child and its environment, we ought to give the child drugs in order to force it to conform, rather than create a healthier environment.

JIM AIKIN

Menlo Park

PROFITABLE PUSHERS

Editor -- Joan Ryan is naive. Pharmaceutical giant Ciba-Geigy makes $900 million annually off drugging children on Ritalin just in this country. Does Ryan think this pharmaceutical company is some sort of gentle, caring philanthropic organization out to save hyperactive children? The reality is that drug companies push drugs in much the same way that the Coke company sells Cokes; the more, the merrier.

When parents relinquish their children to Ritalin, they demonstrate a lack of will to resist the powerful forces of profit-driven psychiatry in alliance with an ignorant, compliant educational establishment.

NADIA SILVERSHINE

Kentfield

NO STATESMAN

Editor -- Honor Jesse Helms as a great statesman ( Letters, Aug. 23) -- never! Jesse Helms is a small-minded tyrant. He used his position as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to pursue isolationism, harangue the U.N., and arbitrarily deny hearings for Clinton appointees -- no explanation needed.

In his almost 30 years in the Senate, he did nothing positive to bridge the racial divide. He only exacerbated tensions by his outright hostility toward minorities. He despised homosexuals and referred to Roberta Achtenburg, who worked for the Clinton administration, as "That damn lesbian." He once warned Clinton that he might be assassinated if he came to North Carolina.

There is nothing statesmanlike about Jesse Helms, and I hope we never see his like again elected to high office.

GERALD M. SUTLIFF

Oakland

WORKING ADVOCATES

Editor -- Since it seems the homeless advocates have so much time on their hands, why don't they offer to help out? It seems so much more useful that these people, rather than argue with police, should lend a hand in the weekly clean-up. If they are so concerned about homeless getting their belongings back, then they should offer to pay for storage and run the organization of making sure every stolen shopping cart and other items get returned to their beloved homeless.

These advocates do a lot of yelling and screaming and complaining, but do they offer to help? I believe every homeless advocate should be required to help in the efforts of cleaning up after the people they fight so hard for. Why not allow homeless to live with the homeless advocates? Maybe then these advocates will understand the frustration the rest of San Francisco is going through with these dirty, unlawful people.

SIMONE HAAS

San Francisco

THE REAL SAINTS

Editor -- So letter writer Jack Gallagher (Letters, Aug. 24) thinks the people squatting and soiling on our sidewalks are the equivalent of modern-day saints. Maybe he should move from Mill Valley into San Francisco so he can experience their saintliness on a daily basis.

The real saints in this situation are the social workers who offer help often refused, the sanitation crews saddled with cleaning up after the street people, and the passers-by who give money out of misdirected compassion.

Let Gallagher's street saints go marching into the nearest rehab center to get a shower, get a job and get a life. Perhaps then they can be considered for canonization.

DOGS' RIGHTS

Editor -- Last time I checked, dogs were not allowed to drive and could not vote. Yet, inevitably, dog owners still claim that their charges have equal access rights as people to public parks with no restrictions. Sorry, but it ain't so.

Your rights as a citizen are not transferable to your dog, horse, gun, ATV, mountain bike, tent, canoe, etc. Those activities may be restricted or even forbidden as society sees fit. For example, firearms are prohibited in national parks.

Additionally, since dogs don't pay taxes, the sought-after dog parks should be paid for in their entirety by dog owners.

As the owner of a wonderful mutt who provides me and others with fine company, I have no problems with rules and regulations. Why are these reasonable and sensible guidelines so difficult for dog owners to comprehend? Typically it's because special interest groups refuse to.